If a police officer in the field thinks your marijuana plants fall beyond what medical laws provide, they can tear up your garden and destroy your plants.

And, even if the officers were wrong, don't expect to be compensated for the uprooted crop.

A California appellate court decision published this week affirmed a Humboldt County Superior Court judge's ruling and essentially says that officers can use their discretion in determining if there is probable cause to believe a grow falls outside the bounds of state medical marijuana laws. If they do suspect a grow or a possessed amount of processed marijuana is illegal, the officers can destroy it, the court found.

While some say the case gives officers more discretion in the field and clarifies what they can take into consideration when determining if they suspect a growing operation to be illegal, others say the case of Roscoe Littlefield was so egregious that the court's ruling won't have much of an impact on possession and cultivation cases that really do fall in the gray area of state marijuana law.

The case takes root in 2008 when, in a remote area of the county, Roscoe Littlefield, three of his family members and a man by the name of Jeffrey Libertini were growing about 200 marijuana plants at two garden sites on their property. The gardens had medical four marijuana recommendations posted, three of which were in the names of members of the Littlefield family and allowed the usage of up to two ounces of marijuana a day to relieve "a specified degenerative joint disease," lower back pain and anxiety.

When the Humboldt County Sheriff's Office busted the grow in September of that year, they reported finding the plants "heavily laden with buds." Deputies estimated that the plants -- each of which had a diameter of more than six feet, with a combined canopy area of almost 6,000 square feet -- would yield a harvest of about 1,500 pounds.

Deputies consulted with Lt. Wayne Hanson, who oversaw the operation that day, and he gave the go ahead to cut the garden down. According to the ruling, Hanson based his decision on not only the size of the growing operation -- which was far beyond what county guidelines allowed -- but also the fact that it appeared to surpass even the massive amount allowed under the posted recommendations and that officers found a loaded rifle with a 50-round "banana clip" at the property.

Under Hanson's direction, deputies photographed the marijuana, took a 10-pound sample and five random subsamples. The rest of the marijuana was destroyed.

When no arrests or criminal charges followed the raid, the Littlefields sued the county for damages, seeking between $683,724 and $1.3 million for pain and suffering and the replacement value of their destroyed marijuana.

Humboldt County Superior Court Judge Christopher Wilson heard the case and found the central question to be "whether the officers engaged in the marijuana eradication operation possessed, at the time the marijuana here was seized, facts as would lead a man of ordinary caution or prudence to believe, and conscientiously entertain a strong suspicion of the guilt of the accused."

Wilson also rejected the Littlefields' contention that simply showing a medical marijuana recommendation immunizes a grower from having their plants seized, noting that state medical marijuana laws essentially just provide an affirmative defense -- meaning it gives qualified patients a defense, but doesn't protect them from seizures or even prosecutions if they are suspected of breaking the law.

Wilson threw out the Littlefields' case, and they filed an appeal.

The appellant court's ruling sides with Wilson, and seems to go a step further in outlining exactly what factors officers can use to determine if there's probable cause to believe a marijuana cultivation operation is beyond the scope of medical laws. Specifically, the court found that officers can consider the presence of firearms at the grow, the size of the grow and the nature of patient recommendations posted at the site when deciding whether they think a grow may be illegal.

In the case of the Littlefields, the court found that the size of the grow compared to county guidelines, the presence of the rifle, the fact that all the patient recommendations at the site were given by the same doctor for similar ailments and the large quantity prescribed were all factors that would lead a reasonable officers to conclude the grow was illegal.

Reached Wednesday, Hanson said he's glad the court affirmed the decision he made in the field that day but said he isn't surprised, noting that he felt there was little gray area in the Littlefield case.

Even if you assume the doctor's recommendations were valid, Hanson said that would have allowed for a maximum 45.6 pounds of marijuana to supply each of the patients for a year, for a combined total weight of about 273 pounds. The approximate weight of the marijuana destroyed was 1,500 -- more than five times what was prescribed.

But the recommendations themselves were highly suspect, Hanson said, adding that two ounces of marijuana a day is the equivalent of more than 100 average-sized marijuana cigarettes a day.

"People like the Littlefields are using Proposition 215 as a shield to cultivate marijuana for sale and to make large sums of cash," Hanson said, adding that the process for destroying seized drugs is clearly outlined in section 11479 of the California Health and Safety Code. "We're peace officers. Whatever the law is, we follow it."

The California State Sheriff's Association believed the court's ruling was important enough that it lobbied the court in a July 17 letter to publish its ruling to provide "invaluable guidance to law enforcement officials concerning the proper standards that they should apply" when deciding whether a marijuana garden is compliant with state and local medical guidelines.

Eureka attorney William Mitchell, who represented the county in the case, said he thinks the Littlefield ruling is important because it addresses what criteria officers can use to determine whether they think a grow is illegal, and because it clearly states that law enforcement agencies cannot be expected to store and preserve growing marijuana they confiscate, which the appellate court deemed impractical.

Dale Gieringer, director of the California branch of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, said he thinks there's little noteworthy about the Littlefield case.

"I really thought it was a pretty clear case -- It didn't take a genius to figure out these people were sort of beyond reasonable medical need," he said, adding that the two-ounces-per-day recommendation is five times higher than the biggest number he's even seen documented for a medical marijuana patient. "I'm not terribly alarmed about (the ruling). I don't view at is setting a particularly dangerous president because it was such a clear example (of excess)."